Round-Up
In today’s LA Times, David G. Savage has this article on the federal court decision in the Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC case, overturning a key segment of the campaign finance law that prohibited issue advertisements paid for by corporations, unions, and special interest groups. The New York Times has this report on the ruling, which sets the stage for the Supreme Court to reconsider the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 and Carol D. Leonnig has this article in the Washington Post.
Rick Hasen of Election Law Blog has his thoughts on the Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC decision in this post. Additional reactions can be found here from Bob Bauer at the Campaign Finance Law Guide; in this post from Brad Smith at the Center for Competitive Politics; and in this statement from J. Gerald Hebert, Campaign Legal Center Director of Litigation.
In addition, on Wednesday, Howard Bashman of How Appealing filed this cert petition on grandparent visitation rights along with the University of Virginia Supreme Court Litigation Clinic.
This decision is welcome news for everyone who believes citizens should have the right to criticize the government during an election or at anytime for that matter. I still cannot fathom how otherwise intelligent people from both parties and five supreme court judges could vote to limit free speech. The LA Times article is instructive. It contains this quote: “In dissent, U.S. District Judge Richard W. Roberts said there was reason to believe the ads “were intended to influence a Senate election” and therefore should be covered by the law.” The tenor of the quote is fascinating because it is without irony: speech is illegal. Why? Because it is “intended to influence a Senate election!” The audacity of those law breakers! How dare they try to encourage citizens to vote a particular way!! Off with their heads!!!!!!!!!
Comment by Dennis Bedard — December 23, 2006 @ 4:57 pm
I have a question to any election law expert. Let us suppose the AFL CIO or any private citizen decided to engage in a pattern of civil disobedience by running an ad on TV or radio that stated in sum: “Senator ______________ does not support a higher minimum wage. He opposes the interests of working Americans. Vote against him on election day.” The ad ran continuously despite warnings, etc. Could the offender face criminal charges for this conduct? And another question. Does McCain Feingold apply to the internet? I am curious to know.
Comment by Dennis Bedard — December 25, 2006 @ 8:52 pm